Pennsylvania

Container

As used in this act:
(1) “Land” means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty.
(2) “Owner” means the possessor of a fee interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant or person in control of the premises.
(3) “Recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, pleasure driving, nature study, water skiing, water sports, cave exploration and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
(4) “Charge” means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land.

477-3. Duty to keep premises safe; warning

Except as specifically recognized or provided in section 6 of this act, [FN1] an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.

Except as specifically recognized by or provided in section 6 [FN1] of this act, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use such property for recreational purposes does not thereby:
(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose.
(2) Confer upon such person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed.
(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act of omission of such persons.
(4) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property, wherever such persons or property are located, caused while hunting as defined in 34 Pa.C.S. § 102 (relating to definitions).

477-6. Liability not limited

Nothing in this act limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
(1) For wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity.
(2) For injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in the case of land leased to the State or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for such lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this section.

477-7. Construction of act

Nothing in this act shall be construed to:
(1) Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or property.
(2) Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this act to exercise care in his use of such land and in his activities thereon, or from the legal consequences of failure to employ such care.

Method of Assessment: Use value based on state established categories for agriculture and forestry lands.

Application: Yes, burden on owner (if land meets requirements in 72 P.S. § 5490.3) to apply to county Board of Assessment appeals for the county in which the land is located. 72 P.S. § 5490.4. Application requires notice-of-change-in-use provision.

Penalties: If a landowner changes the use of any tract of land subject to preferential assessment, he shall be subject to roll-back taxes plus interest on each year's roll-back tax at the rate of six percent per annum. After the first seven years of preferential assessment, the roll-back tax shall apply to the seven most recent tax years.

View all states with current use programsHide all states with current use Programs

Valuation: With reference to land that is subject to a restrictive covenant included under 72 P.S. § 11941, the board shall determine the actual value with the restrictive covenant attached and the assessment shall be based thereon.

View all states with tax incentives when land is subject to conservation easementHide all states with tax incentives when land is subject to conservation easement

Hunters gain increased access while landowners are provided with a method to control game populations present on their property. Reducing swelling populations is thought to provide improved quality of habitat for the wildlife that remains.

The Cooperative Safety Zone Program provides a better landowner-hunter relationship and improved hunting conditions at a time when residential and industrial development and farm consolidation annually chip away at available hunting territory. Landowners benefit from added security and increased signage as well as limited liability when individuals enter their property for recreational purposes. Conservation benefits are not recorded.

-This case (very important for the Pennsylvania statute) applies a set of 5 factors which were laid down in a prior case (Yanno v Consolidated Rail Corp. 1999). These 5 factors are used to determine if the land in question is appropriate for the immunity offered by the statute. The factors are: use, size, location, openness, and extent of improvement. Essentially, if a piece of land is abandoned/little used, large in size, rural/remote, more open than enclosed, and/or unimproved, then it has a better chance of being proper for the recreational immunity than a parcel of land that is in use for business/kept private, small in size, urban, closed in/fenced off, and/or highly improved. The land may be looked at as a whole, or just the section where accidental injury occurred, on a case-by-case basis. In either case, the factors are weighed in a balancing test to see whether immunity is proper or not.
-In Murtha, since the injured party was hurt in the backyard of plaintiff’s vacation home that was occasionally rented-out, which was also partly fenced off and had a swimming pool and tennis court close at hand, the recreational immunity was not considered appropriate. The condition of the land suggested that it was not the type of large, open, natural setting that was impracticable to monitor and maintain that the drafters of the statute had envisioned when passing the recreational immunity legislation.

Stone v. York Haven Power Co. 561 Pa. 189 (2000)

-The intention of the Legislature to limit the applicability of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RUA) to outdoor recreation on largely unimproved land is evident not only from the Act's stated purpose but also from the nature of the activities it listed as recreational purposes within the meaning of the statute; specifically, with the exception of “swimming,” which may be either an indoor or outdoor sport, the recreational activities enumerated in the statute are all pursued outdoors
-Consistent with the obvious purpose and intent of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RUA), where land devoted to recreational purposes has been improved in such a manner as to require regular maintenance in order for it to be used and enjoyed safely the owner has a duty to maintain the improvements.
-The need to limit owner liability under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Act (RUA) derives from the impracticality of keeping large tracts of largely undeveloped land safe for public use.

Mills v. Com. 534 Pa. 519 (1993)

-Nonprofit municipal corporation was not entitled to immunity from personal injury actions under Recreation Use of Land and Water Act (RUA), where land which corporation had leased was highly developed recreational area, vastly altered from its natural state, containing attractions for which entry fees were required.
-Landowner must bear responsibility of maintaining improvements placed upon land to which general public is permitted access.
-Ordinary users of developed recreation area could reasonably expect area to be maintained in manner safe for their normal recreational pursuits.

This program was partially funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program (Grant DC M-59-R), a program supported with funds from the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and jointly managed with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2007.